Uncategorized

On eve of veto session, former Winooski lawmaker opposes non-citizen voting

By Guy Page

A former Winooski lawmaker supports Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of non-citizen voting

The House of Representatives meets tomorrow at 10 AM to consider an override of H227, which allows non-citizen voting in Winooski, and H177, allowing non-citizen voting in Montpelier. 

In a letter to the Legislature, Democrat George Cross asks instead for a study of the pros and cons of town-by-town approval vs. a statewide approach. Cross served as Winooski Superintendent of Schools until 1999 and then served 10 years in the House. The 30-year city resident is the adopted father of two naturalized daughters and has worked with the city’s New American community. 

At today’s press conference, Gov. Scott read the letter in which Cross says, “I wish to urge you to support Gov. Scott’s veto of the Winooski and Montpelier charter changes.” 

A variable town-by-town approach creates inconsistency and unfairness, Cross said. “Simply allowing local voters will establish a patchwork of who can vote and on what,” Scott ad-libbed while reading the letter. “I’m not opposed to it philosophically.”

Cross said a state law could clearly define what “non-citizen” means, what they can and can’t vote on, and which offices they can and cannot hold. The Montpelier and Winooski charter changes answer these questions differently. “The two changes on the table are not equitable,” Cross said. 

At 10 AM tomorrow, the Vermont Senate will convene to discuss the governor’s veto of S107, raising from 19 to 20 the maximum age of charging as a juvenile. Gov. Scott vetoed the bill because the State has failed to deliver on its promise to provide services for at-risk youths when it raised the age of adult accountability to 19. 

“At the time, I was assured that, prior to the automatic increases in age prescribed in the bill, plans would be in place to provide access to the rehabilitation, services, housing and other supports needed to both hold these young adults accountable and help them stay out of the criminal justice system in the future.

“This has not yet been the case. In addition to ongoing housing challenges, programs designed and implemented for children under 18 are often not appropriate for those over 18. Disturbingly, there are also reports of some young adults being used – and actively recruited – by older criminals, like drug traffickers, to commit crimes because of reduced risk of incarceration, potentially putting the young people we are trying to protect deeper into the criminal culture and at greater risk.”

Categories: Uncategorized

9 replies »

  1. Do you really think these leftists, socialists, & Marxists want to listen to rational viewpoints? They are called radicals for a reason.

    These are the people who want brothels & MORE drugs (that are PROVEN to be addictive & injurious) and illegal migrants in Vermont!

  2. IF ILLEGALS ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE, THAT WILL DILUTE THE VOTES OF US THE CITIZENS. THIOS IS 1 ILLEGAL BY CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS. 2 IT WILL DILUTE THE WISHES OF US LEGAL VOTERS..

  3. VT constitution:

    § 42. [VOTER’S QUALIFICATIONS AND OATH]
    Every person of the full age of eighteen years who is a citizen of the United States, having resided in this State for the period established by the General Assembly and who is of a quiet and peaceable behavior, and will take the following oath or affirmation, shall be entitled to all the privileges of a voter of this state:

    You solemnly swear (or affirm) that whenever you give your vote or suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the State of Vermont, you will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most conduce to the best good of the same, as established by the Constitution, without fear or favor of any person.

    Every person who will attain the full age of eighteen years by the date of the general election who is a citizen of the United States, having resided in this State for the period established by the General Assembly and who is of a quiet and peaceable behavior, and will take the oath or affirmation set forth in this section, shall be entitled to vote in the primary election.

  4. Why in the world would anyone want a noncitizen or an illegal resident to have the right to vote. Citizenship in our United States of America is a is a serious responsibility, not to be shared lightly. Voting in any fashion other than the mantle of United States Citizenship is not to be considered. To offer the privilege of voting in any election, local or national is not within the ability of anyone to bestow of non-citizens, legal or illegal. This is an effort of the Liberal Caucus to dilute the effect of rightful Citizens vote.

    • Dear sir: I applaud your courage in opposing this foolish law and I am happy that there is at least one lawmaker who is loyal to his oath of office! Non citizens who are here illegally should never be allowed to vote. We have legal procedure for entering this country and a pathway to legal citizenship that needs to be enforced

    • I agree. Anyone voting to potentially violate the sanctity of our rights under our US Constitution (and/or Vermont) is committing a capital offense as is so stated. Don’t get it? These are all foreign agents until they become US Citizens. Any Judiciary member who rules against the sanctity of the US Constitution is doing the same thing. That is the “law of the land” and you don’t get to “fiddle” with it. The prescribed penalty needs to be applied w/o exception. You’re confused? Too bad. Your sacrifice will become “collateral damage” and help those who follow you to “beware” of doing the same thing. When you hang, think of it this way: You’re making a contribution to the security of the future of this country for those who follow. Many have served and done that before you. Be “proud” to join them…! If you are first, you’ll be “breaking the ice” for those who follow you. We’ll get ’em all (that’s our pledge to whoever is first and you can count on it). …Safety in numbers? Huh. Just calls for a bigger gallows…! The above goes for the Second Amendment, too.

  5. A “resident” is NOT a citizen and therefore does not have the solemn right of voting. What kind of madness are we allowing!

Leave a Reply